1951-12-05

Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to avail myself of the privilege, which is afforded at this time, of congratulating the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on the tenth anniversary of his entry into the House of Commons. Each one of those of us who believe in our particular form of democratic government shares the hope that men who have attained success in their own particular field of activity, whatever it may be, will show the same willingness to serve the public that has been shown by the Prime Minister of Canada. It was to serve his country that he gave up the comfortable security of his own home and, may I add, the assured income of a leader of the bar. Those who do not belong to his own party will, I am sure, pay tribute to the spirit of public service which prompted his entry into this house just as much as those who are associated with him in his own party.
I am particularly pleased that we are afforded the opportunity to pay him our respects in this way, because I am inclined to think that never was there a time when it was so desirable that the thought be impressed upon the mind of every Canadian, particularly young Canadians, that the vigour and surviving strength of our democratic system depends on the willingness of those who are able to do their own job well to enter the parliament of Canada and give the advantage of their experience to the deliberations of this house. Whether it may be in public or in private life, I trust and I am confident that the Prime Minister will at all times have in his heart a feeling of satisfaction in knowing that, whatever our political opinions may be, we all respect him for the public service he has rendered.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: This group would like to associate itself, Mr. Speaker, with what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has said concerning the service of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to his country and this parliament.
It is not often that we find ourselves in such complete agreement with the leader of the opposition as we do on this occasion. Speaking for myself, I can say that I have particularly enjoyed-I think that is the word I should use-the almost unfailing courtesy of the Prime Minister in dealing with the matters that come up in this house. I say "almost" because there are perhaps moments that would try the temper of any person; but he seldom allows himself the pleasure of replying in kind. I think that those of us who have been here for some time all appreciate the parliamentary courtesies that he has shown us. I want to wish him success and long life to carry on the duties that he has taken up at a critical time in Canada's history.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that we all appreciate this opportunity of joining in an expression of good will and congratulations to the Prime Minister. After ten years in parliament one can truthfully say that he has certainly maintained and retained a sense of fairness and a sense of balance. One often wonders just how he has been able to keep his sense of proportion in view of all the things with which he has to contend. I know that sometimes we are inclined to try to rulb the Prime Minister a little bit in order to get a certain reaction from him. I think that is only natural because he is so delightful when he is rubbed. I personally have always felt that it is worth while to bring out the little bits of Irish in him. If we do so occasionally, it is only because we love him. I think that it is a sincere statement on the part of anyone who cares to speak in this house, when he says that we all greatly appreciate the fine qualities of the Prime Minister. We all join in telling him this. If we have a little bit of fun once in a while out of his reactions, it is certainly only because of-


An hon. Member:: The savage in us.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, the savage in us. We just want to show him how much we appreciate him. I join with the others who have spoken in wishing him a good many years more of happiness and of service to this country. We are not unmindful of the sacrifices that our Prime Minister has made and is making.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to find words to express adequately my appreciation

Congratulations to Prime Minister of what has been said here this afternoon and, over and above that, my appreciation of the sentiments that have prompted the kind remarks that you have just heard. They are compensation for whatever one can do in the attempt to be of service to his fellow citizens and to carry out his part in this undertaking in which we are all engaged, namely that of making our democracy effective and worth while for all Canadian citizens. I appreciate, even more than the expressions that were used this afternoon, the constant friendship that I have felt from every member of this house during a period of almost ten years now that it has been my privilege to sit here. I think the leader of the opposition has uttered a truth that we ourselves should not forget and that we should not allow our fellow citizens to forget, namely that each one of us who feels that this system of social organization is the best that human ingenuity has been able to devise for the administration of the common interests of free men and women in organized society must also feel that each one of us should be at the disposal of his fellow citizens for any responsibility they wish at any time to entrust him with. I am sure that this is as true of every other member of this House of Commons as I hope it is of me: our real compensation for any public service we perform is the satisfaction of knowing that we are doing something for the maintenance of that system for our own generation and for the generations that will follow us in this country which has such a glorious future before it.



PENSION ACT


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of
privilege, I should like to clarify certain information which I gave to the house on Friday last during the discussion of Bill No. 27, to amend the Pension Act, in the committee stage. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) asked if those veterans who had the right to treatment because they were receiving the unemployability supplement might not lose the right because the supplement was being replaced by an increase in the pension. My reply might have indicated that such veterans' treatment rights would be unchanged.
On further considering the question and reply in Hansard, I find that my answer might be construed as going beyond what I intended. I had in mind then what had been decided in regard to a certain group of those who received the unemployability supplement, namely those who had formerly been on war veterans allowance. It is certainly
[Mr. St Laurent.1
the intention that these veterans, though they went off war veterans allowance to receive the unemployability supplement and may now not be eligible for war veterans allowance by reason of the increase in pensions, will still be eligible for treatment.
It is intended to protect the eligibility for treatment of veterans in this group by a revision of the regulation which provides for free treatment for pensioners and veterans with service in a theatre of actual war who are unable to pay for the cost of their treatment. I believe it is done at the present time under regulation 5A. As hon. members know, an income ceiling is set in this regulation, and the veteran with an income below the ceiling is eligible for treatment. The ceiling was previously set so that the 100 per cent pensioner who had no other financial resources would be eligible. It will now be necessary to adjust the income ceiling to provide that this principle will apply when the new rates of pension are in effect after January 1.
In other words, those eligible for free treatment before the unemployability supplement was brought into effect will still be eligible for it after it has lapsed and in spite of the pension increases.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Second report of special committee on radio broadcasting.'-Mr. Robinson.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. Philippe Picard (Bellechasse) presented the first report of the standing committee on public accounts, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Knowles be substituted for that of Mr. Coldwell on the special committee on radio broadcasting.
That the name of Mr. Argue be substituted for that of Mr. Thatcher on the standing committee on public accounts.
That the name of Mr. Noseworthy be substituted for that of Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North) on the standing committee on public accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. LaCroix:: 1.	Did the acting army commander of the eastern Quebec area issue special instructions for the Remembrance day ceremonies at Quebec in English only?
2.	If so, for what reason?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1 and 2. Orders in the Quebec area are regularly issued in French and English, but the Remembrance day ceremonies at Quebec, like those in many centres in Canada, are arranged for primarily by the Canadian Legion and the instructions to members of the armed forces participating conformed to those of the Canadian Legion and were in English. Care will be taken to see that such special instructions will, like the regular orders, be in future issued in French and English.


CAMP SHILO, MAN.  HOCKEY
Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	Have the military authorities at camp Shilo hired a hockey coach? If so, at what salary?
2.	Are the military authorities at camp Shilo offering financial inducements to hockey players?
3.	If so, what is the nature of employment or services offered such hockey players?


Joseph-Adéodat Blanchette: 1,	2 and 3. The military authorities, that is, components of the Canadian armed forces, at camp Shilo have neither hired a hockey coach nor offered financial inducements to hockey players. It is understood, however, that the garrison recreation committee, an organization representing officers and men and their dependents, has engaged the services of a coach and pays the expenses of individual players out of non-public funds raised through the activities of the committee.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR


Mr. Dube:: 1.	How many offices are occupied by the Department of Labour in Edmundston, New Brunswick?
2.	Are such offices the property of the dominion government or are they rented?
3.	If rented on lease, from whom are they rented?
4.	What is the annual rental?
5.	Does the said rental include heat, light and janitor services?
6.	If so, what part of such rental is allowed for janitor service?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	One office at 39 Canada road occupied by the unemployment insurance commission.
2.	Rented.
3.	From D. J. Long, Clair, Madawaska Co., N.B.
4.	$5,584.95.
5.	Rental includes heating, but not lighting, cleaning or janitor services.
6.	Answered by No. 5.



SMUGGLING OF CIGARETTES

Mr. Coyle:: 1.	How many prosecutions have been launched in Canada from April 1, 1951, to date, for smuggling cigarettes into Canada?
Questions
2.	How many convictions were registered for the same period?
3.	What was the total number of cigarettes seized from April 1, 1951, to date, for violations of the customs regulations?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Prosecutions are recorded on completion and the number of such prosecutions completed between April 1, 1951, and October 31, 1951, was 306.
2.	Number of convictions-301.
3.	Number of cigarettes seized between April 1, 1951, and November 30, 1951, was 8,434,963.



S.S. &quot;AORANGl&quot;  PASSENGER AND FREIGHT SERVICE UNDER SUBSIDY ARRANGEMENT   REPLACEMENT ASSISTANCE

Mr. Laing:: 1.	(a) How many passengers; (b) what tonnage of freight, have been carried on each trip of R.M.S. Aorangi since renewal of service under the present subsidy arrangement nine months ago?
2.	Is any consideration being given to assisting the replacement of this vessel by a fast combination passenger and reefer ship of Canadian registry capable of quick turnarounds?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	(a) 517, 591, 639, 502, 552. (b) 1434, 1327, 2033, 2229, 1474.
2.	No.



CANADIAN PACIFIC AIR LINES

[Stage Direction]
1952 PACIFIC RUN
Mr. Laing:: 1.	What points will be served by Canadian Pacific Air Lines upon inauguration of their Pacific run in 1952?
2.	Have arrangements been completed to land at Auckland, New Zealand?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	Canadian Pacific Air Lines are operating two international routes in the Pacific. It is not expected that any new routes will be inaugurated in 1952 although it is hoped to add New Zealand as a point of call on the southern route.
2.	No.



VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT


Mr. Laing:: 1.	What is the daily average for last six months operation of (a) passengers carried; (b) weight of airmail; (c) freight transport, at Vancouver international airport?
2.	How many public carriers and how many contract companies used the facilities of this airport?
3.	How many people are employed in the combined services at this airport?


Mr. Benidickson:: Complete answer to the question asked by the hon. member cannot be supplied since

Questions
Vancouver international airport is operated by the city of Vancouver and not by the federal government; information would therefore have to be obtained from the municipal authorities. However, partial information can be supplied from federal sources as follows:
1.	While the daily average of all air traffic over the last six months is not available, during the month of March 1951 the daily average of scheduled traffic was 823 passengers, 5,663 lbs. of mail, 3,550 lbs. of express and of other cargo.
2.	Ten domestic commercial air carriers and two foreign commercial air carriers are licensed to operate into or from Vancouver international airport. No information is available as to the number of additional commercial carriers which use the airport on an itinerant basis or the number of private companies or private persons basing aircraft there or using the airport.
3.	Ninety employees of the air service branch of the Department of Transport are located at Vancouver international airport including telecommunication, meteorological and air traffic control service.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Ross (Souris):: How many people entered Canada from the United States of America through each of the ports of entry along Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta boundaries, during the year 1950?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: Total admissions from the United States through the border ports of entry in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, during the year 1950:
Manitoba
Boissevain	 22,498
Cartwright	 13,226
Coulter	 21,949
Crystal City	 19,936
Emerson	 276,402
Goodlands	 15,780
Gretna	 104,519
Haskett	 31,270
Lena	 30,181
Lyleton	 9,415
Middlebro	 20,399
Piney	  16,352
Snowflake	 10,713
South Junction	 12,276
Sprague	  2,893
Windygates	 13,659
Total	 621,468
Saskatchewan
Big Beaver	 10,311
East Poplar River	 8,398
Elmore	 18,961
Estevan	 29,454
Marienthal	 10,637
Monchy	 11,518
Northgate	 54,754
North Portal	 183,040
Oungre	 13,560
Regway	 23,541
Treelon	 7,774
West Poplar River	 7,614
Willow Creek	 4,053
Total	 383,616
Alberta
Aden	 1,841
Carway	 61,260
Chief Mountain	 76,157
Coutts	  548^742
Del Bonita	 14,865
Waterton Lakes	 41
Wild Horse	 4,009
Total	 706,915
Note: The above figures include immigrants, returned residents and tourists.



VANCOUVER POSTAL SERVICE


Mr. Maclnnis:: 1.	How many letter carriers are employed in the Vancouver postal district?
2.	How many letter carriers in this district have resigned (a) during the calendar year 1950; (b) during the first ten months of 1951?
3.	How many letter carriers have been brought into the postal service in the said district during the two above-mentioned periods?
4.	What is the (a) starting salary for letter carriers; (b) the maximum salary?
5.	How many years does it take to reach the maximum?
6.	What are the daily; (b) weekly, working hours for letter carriers?
7.	How many hours of overtime were worked by letter carriers in the Vancouver postal district during the calendar year 1950?
8.	How is overtime worked compensated?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: This report only covers the Vancouver city postal area.
1.	433.
2.	(a) 14; (b) 44.
3.	(a) 38; (b) 49.
4.	(a) $1,920; (b) $2,628.
5.	6 years.
6.	(a) 8 hours; (b) 44 hours.
7.	Not immediately available. Would require some research to obtain information.
8.	By time off, or cash remuneration at pro rata rates.

Inquiries of the Ministry
INQUIRY FOR RETURNS	CIVIL SERVICE



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: On Wednesday, October 31, I put seven questions on the order paper and they were passed as orders for returns, but I have not yet received a single answer. I wonder whether the Minister of National Defence, or his parliamentary assistant, can let me know at what time I may expect an answer?


Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):: I will have to look into that.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Hodgson:: For a copy of the English translations of all broadcasts of the international service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation transmitted to Soviet Russia and Czechoslovakia.
He said: You may have it taken off, if you wish.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



MR. R. G. PEERS

Clayton Wesley Hodgson: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between Mr. R. G. Peers and the government of Canada or any department or agency thereof since January 1, 1946.


Mr. Mcllraith:: Before the motion is put I
wonder whether the hon. member would consent to its standing over until Monday?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: That is fine.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY    CONSTRUCTION IN NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. Black (Cumberland):: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents, in the possession of any department of the federal government dated January 1, 1949, to November 30, 1951, relating to the construction of the trans-Canada highway in the province of Nova Scotia.


Mr. Winters:: There is no objection to this correspondence being tabled, Mr. Speaker, subject to the reservation that we shall have to seek permission from the government of Nova Scotia with respect to their part in it.


Mr. Speaker:: 


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, subject to
the reservation of the minister.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State, of which I have given him notice. Will he make a statement as to the granting of a full day holiday to civil servants on the eve of Christmas and New Year?


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State):: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. The position is that Monday, December 24, and Monday, December 31, 1951, will be observed as civil service holidays, subject to the discretion of the deputy heads of the departments making such arrangements for skeleton staffs as may be required. The whole of both of these days will be counted as overtime for such employees of the Post Office Department as are unable to take either day off.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the Department of Transport changed its regulations recently in regard to not allowing Trans-Canada Air Lines and other commercial air lines to carry passengers on flight decks, that is, the operations compartment of the planes, except qualified personnel and transport officers?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I wonder whether the hon. member would allow his question to stand as a notice so that I can get the information and give it to him?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes. I should like to address a question to the parliamentary assistant of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, under whose department Trans-Canada Air Lines are administered. Will the parliamentary assistant make a statement as to why passengers have been sold tickets in the operations compartment of Trans-Canada Air Lines planes, and also why pilots have been suspended for obeying the Department of Transport regulations and safety measures?


George James McIlraith: I have had no notice of the question.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I did not think it needed any.


George James McIlraith: I regret I am not able to answer it at the moment. If the facts in the
1604

Inquiries of the Ministry statement part of the question are true I of course will see that an answer is brought forward as quickly as possible.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The facts are according to the press.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And I believe they are correct.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



CIGARETTES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Hunter (Parkdale):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. What legislation, if any, is the Department of Justice contemplating to prevent persons under sixteen years of age from buying cigarettes from automatic vending machines?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: This is the type of question in reference to which I am very glad that my hon. friend gave me notice. We are not contemplating any change in the law because we are of the opinion that the law as it stands at the present time is sufficient for the purpose. It is contained in section 2 of the tobacco restraint act or, more fully "an act to restrain the use of tobacco by young persons". This section reads in part as follows:
2. Every one is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction . . . who. directly or indirectly, sells or gives or furnishes to a person under the age of sixteen years any cigarettes or cigarette papers, whether for his own use or not, or sells or gives or furnishes to such person tobacco in any form other than cigarettes which tobacco he knows or has reason to believe is for the use of that person.
We believe that that section, if enforced, is adequate for the purpose.


John William Gordon Hunter: Since such sale can only be prevented by prohibiting the use of such machines, is the department contemplating such prohibition?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Outright prohibition, do you mean?


John William Gordon Hunter: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The position we take is that the purpose of the act is to restrain the sale of cigarettes to minors. So far as we know, we have no reason to suppose that the law is not effective for that purpose. The administration of it, as my hon. friend knows, is the responsibility of the attorneys general of the provinces. We have received no communication from any of the departments of attorneys general to the effect that the law is inadequate, or that some other new law should be
[Mr Mellraith.]

passed. So far as the outright prohibition of the use of vending machines is concerned, that is a matter relating to the sale of goods which more properly could be considered to fall within provincial jurisdiction.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. When the minister seeks from the Canadian National Railways the information asked for on November 30 by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and by myself on November 15, regarding Canadian National Railways pension changes, will he ascertain as well whether there is to be any increase in the pensions being paid to those already retired?


Lionel Chevrier: The answer is yes; but, as I indicated to the hon. member for Lake Centre yesterday, I have as yet received no recommendation, When I do receive it, however, I intend to impart the information to the house. I presume it will cover both points; I hope it does.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So do I.



ARMED FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. Earl Catherwood (Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Would he state whether the present rate of enlistments in the three branches of our armed services is adequate to supply replacements for our forces in Korea, and also to fill our commitments for additional troops in Europe to meet our obligations under the Atlantic pact agreements?


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave notice of his question, but it was in slightly different form. I do not know what he means by "our commitments for additional troops in Europe to meet our obligations" under the North Atlantic pact. The only commitments we have made are those which have been reported to this parliament.
With regard to ground forces, we shall fulfil our agreement to have a brigade in Europe before the end of the year. We have no present intention of increasing this force.

We have in the replacement groups and schools sufficient men to meet all estimated wastage and replacements for a considerable time ahead. However, we want a continuous flow of recruits at an average rate somewhat in excess of what we are getting today.
In this connection the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said in a broadcast last night:
In building up the strength required to prevent aggression and ensure the peace, there is a duty for everyone. It is not something we can leave to the other fellow.
We need a steady flow of young men for the highest service of all-whether it be on the battlefields of Korea, on the ramparts of freedom in Europe, or in our own northland.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders' of the day:
Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked about loans under the National Housing Act to some forty residents of East Kildonan.
I have looked into the matter and I find that these owners made a complaint to the Winnipeg office of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation about two weeks ago. Because the lending institution is the administrator of the mortgages, complaints of this kind are referred by Central Mortgage to the lending institution.
It appears that the dispute between the owners and the builders arises not on account of failure of the lending institution to retain a hold-back because of unfinished work, but rather dissatisfaction by the owners about the quality of work performed by the builder.
The hon. member refers to a protest against the payment of the balance of the mortgage moneys before receiving clearance from the buyers of these homes. At the time of the completion of the sale, each one of these purchasers signed a direction to the lending institution which reads:
The undersigned hereby declares that the said premises have been accepted from the vendor and irrevocably authorizes the company to pay the proceeds of the said additional loan to . . . the vendor of the property, upon registration of transfer of title to me.
Therefore, it would appear that the buyers were satisfied with the houses at the time of occupation and the complaints are, as I have already suggested, about work which, after occupation, is not satisfactory to the owners.
Inquiries of the Ministry
The hon. member asks what can be done to meet the claim of the purchasers of these homes. The present status is that they may have a claim against the builder for unsatisfactory work, and if so they can proceed against the builder through ordinary channels. There is nothing that the mortgagees can do at this time to assist the owners because no contractual relationship exists between the builder and the mortgagees. Each one of these owners was informed in writing that he must make his own contract with the builder and look after his own interest in this respect.
I should add, however, that should it appear to Central Mortgage that the builder has taken or is taking an unreasonable position against just claims by the owner, then Central Mortgage will be unwilling to approve further loans to the builder.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Have the regulations under the Old Age Assistance Act and the regulations under the Old Age Security Act been made? If so, are they available? If not, when will they be available?
Hdn. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, the regulations have been formulated. They will be transmitted, of course, first to the provinces. It is hoped they will be mutually agreed upon well ahead of time, sufficient to permit the operation of the Old Age Assistance Act on the proclamation date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister has answered the question with respect to the regulations under the Old Age Assistance Act. What about the regulations under the Old Age Security Act?


Mr. Martin:: I thought my hon. friend was asking about the regulations under the Old Age Assistance Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I asked about both.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The regulations under the Old Age Security Act will be tabled here as quickly as it is possible so to do.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, December 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. 1606
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Low Robert Cauchon for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Argue.
Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, at the adjournment of the debate on Monday we were discussing the amendment of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), which was in these terms:
That the following words be added to the address: "This house regrets, however, that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to make provision for the immediate payment to producers of 75 per cent of the initial price of farm stored grain."
I had just completed saying that it was our fond hope, under the circumstances, that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) might be inclined to pull a Pete Karpuk play, and rush out from the bench to the assistance of his teammates. We were very much disappointed. I went home that night sad at heart. The reason I was sad at heart was that I could not help thinking about what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) probably was doing. I knew that he must have gone home and spent many long sleepless hours saying over and over again to himself, "Oh, where is my wandering boy tonight?" The boy was wandering in more than one sense, I would judge, from what transpired during last week and the early part of this week.
I do not suppose that there is very much we can do about that particular part of the discussion until such time as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) returns to Ottawa and we find out exactly what is to be done. Let me say, however, that I support the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). I do so because I think it is a good amendment; I think it is timely and I think the assistance it requests from the government is not only necessary but urgent.
All too often when such matters as those covered by this amendment are brought before the house some members will say, "Here is just one more unjustifiable beef on the part of the western farmers." I know that a good many hon. members are inclined to disregard appeals by western members made from time to time on behalf of their constituents. Perhaps their indifference arises from the fact that they lack firsthand information. They have no knowledge of the facts concerning the conditions under which western farmers are trying to carry on and to do their part in feeding the Canadian people as well as many people in other lands.
Let me point out that there are many things which the Canadian farmers cannot possibly (Mr. Martin.]

do for themselves, which only the government can accomplish. It is those things about which we speak so often in this house. I am quite sure that no one can say honestly that the farmers of Canada have been given too much help in times past. I doubt if anyone can bring facts to prove such a case. To me it is just as certain that it cannot be honestly said that the farmers have had even a fair deal. In my judgment, they have rarely had a fair deal. Until comparatively recent years the farmers in this country were looked upon as clodhopping work horses who should not grumble as long as body and soul were able to hang together. However, with the growth of farm organizations and commodity pools the situation became somewhat better and since that time governments have been inclined to listen more attentively to the farmers and their requests for justice.
Even with all that, the farmers still are not getting a fair deal as compared with the other component parts of Canada unlimited. I do not need to remind the house of some of the reasons why I make that statement. In the first place, let me name a few things to bring back to the minds of hon. members how the farmers of this country have suffered. At any time when our farmers have been called upon in emergencies they have responded nobly with an all-out effort. I think one of the finest examples of this was their response during the second world war, when, faced with a shortage of labour, with their sons in the army, navy and air force, they carried on and put forth a prodigious effort to produce the necessary foods and commodities so that we could make a real war effort.
In the second place, our farmers have always been prepared to make sacrifices in the national interest. No one can disprove that. Some of us object to the unnecessary and unequal sacrifices which they are often called upon to make. It is just that feeling that activates us in protesting against the inaction of the government with respect to advances on farm-stored grain.
In the third place, down through the years our farmers have been hounded by income tax sleuths under one of the most unfair enforcement programs I have ever heard of anywhere. They have been hounded into making admissions and doing things which have placed an unnecessary burden of taxation upon them. None of us mind paying fair taxes. We do not mind having to make these payments when they are fair and just, but some of the things that have been done in carrying out this enforcement program in western Canada would make you weep.

Farmers out there have been discouraged because of this. It is going to take a long time to regain their confidence.
In the fourth place, our farmers have borne the cost of subsidizing cheap bread for all the Canadian people over a fairly substantial number of years. At the same time they took a beating under the British wheat agreement. When it was finally decided by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the government that a partial compensation of $65 million should be made to the farmers we heard complaints all through the house of this "gift" that was being made.
I want to say just a word about some of the newspapers in this country which indicated in large headlines that the government had decided to make a gift of $65 million to the farmers. That was the most unfair insinuation that could possibly be made against a portion of our population which had risen so nobly to the occasion during the war and since. That $65 million was not a gift even in the most extreme view that anyone might take. It was nothing but partial compensation for the losses the farmers had suffered as a result of the subsidization program for cheap bread in Canada and for the beating they took under the British wheat agreement. It was nothing more than a token payment.


An hon. Member:: The government did not pay it.


Solon Earl Low: That is quite true; the government did not pay it, it came out of the taxation of all the people of Canada where it should have come from. Any program of subsidizing ought to be borne fairly and justly by all the people and not by just one-third of the population as was the case here.
The fifth important thing to remember is that as far as my memory goes the farmers have been forced to buy in a protected market the things that they require in order to be able to produce, and have been forced to sell in unprotected markets. As a consequence the farmers of this country have constantly been subjected to a beating under the Canadian tariff. Very little if anything has been done about it and they still must suffer.
The farmers were promised parity prices after the war as a reward for accepting lower than world prices for their wheat and wheat products during the war and afterwards. There is no sign of parity as yet although it is now six years since the war ended. We hope most sincerely that parity prices will come and we should all put forth our best efforts to achieve that result. I feel
The Address-Mr. Low that in no other way can fair treatment and justice be extended to the farmers of our country.
It seems to me that what is asked for in this statement is quite reasonable. There may be some hon. members who will feel that the 75 per cent asked for is hardly justified, and perhaps that is so. I cannot justify it entirely but I do think it is something to shoot at. But if the government should come forward with a program of advances of something less than 75 per cent of the initial payment, I do not imagine the farmers are going to kick too much, although 75 per cent may possibly be perfectly justified. Keeping in mind that the initial payment for wheat is only a portion of the final price, it seems to me that 75 per cent may not represent too high a percentage by way of advance. Certainly no one can put up a case that would in any way change our minds with respect to the need of some such advance being made.
Let me say a word about one other matter. About ten days ago the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) was asked if he would announce government policy with respect to the importation into Canada of commercial driers. I think it was understood that there were two types that would be involved. First there was the type that might be brought in by a small co-operative association of farmers as a co-operative enterprise to dry their own wheat. The other type was the kind that would probably be installed by commercial line or pool elevators for the purpose of drying wheat as it came into the elevators. The minister made an announcement as the result of which co-operatives or individuals will be allowed to bring in driers to do co-operative or commercial work, not completely free of duty but on the basis of paying for each month or part of a month that the drier remains in Canada one-sixtieth of the duty that normally would be paid. Under that policy the understanding was that the driers would only be in Canada on lease and would be returnable or exportable at the end of a certain period of time to the country from which they came.
I do not think that is sufficient. We are in an emergency year when there is a tremendous amount of grain that needs to be dried. The grain will spoil if it is not dried soon. If it is left until spring, with the advent of warm weather it is inevitable that a great many thousands and perhaps millions of bushels will never reach the mills in anything like millable condition. In such an emergency year I think the minister would be thoroughly justified in allowing

The Address-Mr. Bater a reasonable number of commercial driers, which would be installed by country elevators, to come into Canada duty free, not just on lease but on purchase. My own feeling is that nobody would criticize action of that kind. The grain has to be dried somewhere and the best place to dry it is where it is first received. Most of the line elevators just have not the drying facilities, and for that reason I think the minister should give careful consideration to allowing such driers to enter the country duty free.
To sum up our attitude, we bespeak for our Canadian farmers only those things that are fair and just. We do not want for them anything that is not fair and just. The farmers should be assured of a return for their efforts that will represent their fair share of the national income. I do not think we should go on year after year imposing conditions upon the country, or allowing conditions to continue, under which our farmers, although they represent perhaps 23 per cent of the population, to receive out of the national income not more than 10 per cent, and in some cases somewhat less than 10 per cent. That condition must not be allowed to continue. If it is, no one can say that justice is being done to Canadian farmers. I want it definitely known that my associates and I strongly support the amendment before the house.


Mr. A. J. Bater (The Battlefords):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate but some of the efforts being made by opposition members to give the impression that they are the only friends the western farmers have are just a little hard to take, particularly for one whose only occupation is that of a farmer. Liberal members from western Canada are concerned not only about the farmer who has grain in storage which he is possibly not in a position to sell at the present time but also with those whose crop is still under snow. Hon. members know that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) have constantly been in touch with the problems of this year's harvest and that they are doing something about them. We have had repeated evidence that other ministers, particularly the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), are doing what they can to help.


Mr. Wylie:: Tell us what they are doing.


Arthur James Bater: Moreover, hon. members know perfectly well that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is in the west this week concerning this problem and is working on it. I


suggest there is no possible excuse for the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) to move such an amendment except a desire to give the impression that he and not the government is deciding the policies of this country. I do not think that is a correct impression, and I believe the proceedings of this house should reflect the situation as it really is. Accordingly I am going to move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore):
That all the words In the amendment alter the word "regrets" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"the serious difficulties encountered by the western farmers in harvesting their crops, and commends Your Excellency's advisers for the continuing attention they have given to the problems caused thereby, and is confident that effective measures will continue to be taken to help the farmers in meeting these problems."


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Pretty weak.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: I want to say a few words, and I do not want to get into any argument with my good friend who preceded me. I congratulate him on having the courage to get up and express his views.


Mr. Brooks:: "Temerity" is the word.


William Scottie Bryce: I am getting so much help I do not know what to do with it. I resent what the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Bater) said about the opposition because I am one of them. I hope there will be that bond of friendship which should exist between all farmers in the west and those in the east, and I think the matter should not be put on the basis of political connivance. I rise to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) because I have been in the same position as these poor people are now in western Canada. I say "poor" because anybody is poor, no matter what spirit he may have, if he cannot pay his bills. The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sin-nott), my next door neighbour, said that there are so many bushels being threshed every day. I am very pleased to hear it.


Mr. Sinnoil:: Hear, hear; so are we all.


William Scottie Bryce: We live in constituencies where God has been good to us. I have lived in my constituency for thirty-two years and there has only been one crop failure. However, there are other poor mortals who have not threshed a bushel yet this year, and I think the government should do something for them. That is why I rise to support the amendment of the hon. member for Assiniboia which reads:
This house regrets, however, that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to make provision for the immediate payment to producers of 75 per cent of the initial price of farm stored grain.

To appreciate the predicament in which these farmers find themselves, one need only to have had a crop lying in the field covered with snow, while the storekeeper is asking for payment of the bills you ran up during the summer. I believe the government should do something for these farmers. I do not want to thresh old straw, but the only way one can be sure of anything is to get up in the house and say you are either for it or against it. I am in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue).
I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) upon having the most efficient collection agency in the income tax field in Manitoba. I do not think there is anything that can touch it, and I speak from practical experience. I tried some of the stunts that my colleagues in the house have tried in other provinces, and the department sent for me. They said "You cannot do that". I said "Well, other people are doing it." They said "It does not matter whether or not they are, you cannot do it in Manitoba". Then I suffered a loss from my bee industry, and I charged up that loss. I was told that I could not do that, and I asked why. The department said "If you were a cabinet minister you could charge your loss up to your indemnity, but not when you are just a backbencher." Therefore I was not only stung by my bees, but I was also stung by the tax department.


Mr. McCann:: Who told you that?


William Scottie Bryce: I have it in black and white. I would not make such a statement unless I could back it up. No other branch can touch the Manitoba branch in collecting income taxes. A lot of credit is due to these officials. They are good civil servants doing a good job. I believe you could go to the Manitoba income tax branch and they could tell you what the 52,000 farmers will be able to pay. Some of the other provincial branches should take a leaf out of their book, and we would not have to pay so much.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: You mean the eastern provinces?


William Scottie Bryce: Any branch that is not collecting enough taxes, or the taxes that are due. I have a clipping here from the Winnipeg Tribune. It reads as follows:
Farmers, as a group, lead the parade in Manitoba in the amount of income taxes paid, according to the most recent issue of taxation statistics by the
The Address-Mr. Bryce Department of National Revenue. Here is the picture as given in the official	publication.	
	Number of	Tax
Occupation	Taxpayers	PaidFarmers 	. .. 6,590	$1,585,000Medical doctors	, . . 390	538,000Salesmen 	. .. 1,200	296,000Lawyers 	... 200	281,000Dentists 	,.. 210	168,000Entertainers 	. .. 120	20,000Engineers and architects ....	... 10	9,000Osteopaths, chiropractors ..	. .. 20	8,000Nurses	... 100	7,000
These figures account for only a small part of the more than $35,000,000 paid in income tax by individuals in Manitoba in the 1949 taxation year. The list does not include dominion, provincial and municipal government employees, members of the armed services, employees in private business or owners of small businesses. But the figures are nevertheless interesting.
Incidentally it should be added that $268,000 was collected from 160 dead persons in the same year. But as this could hardly be classed as a profession it was not inserted in the above table between lawyers and dentists.
Before leaving this subject I should like to repeat my congratulations to the minister upon having such an efficient collection service in Manitoba.


Solon Earl Low: You like it, do you?


William Scottie Bryce: I have a clear conscience, because they have taken every cent I ever owed. I do not mind that because I believe everybody should pay their income taxes. In my opinion it is the fairest form of taxation. If you do not have the income you do not pay the tax. The taxes of the country have to be paid, and this is a fair way of paying them.
I should like to offer hearty congratulations also to the farmers of Manitoba on the outcome to the plebiscite on November 24. There can be no mistake as to where the farmers of Manitoba stand today. The government called for a referendum to give those who were interested an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the marketing system they wanted for their coarse grains. The farmers have given an emphatic answer, because 89 per cent favoured the wheat board. Perhaps it would save time if I quoted from an editorial appearing in the Manitoba Co-operator of November 29, which is headed "The Producers' Decision". It sums up the situation perhaps better than I can.
Some day perhaps those who weep crocodile tears, and purport to speak with all the sincerity and understanding of the farmers' problems, will realize that the producer is more than ever determined that the commodities he produces shall not furnish the pigskin to hold the balloon juice that inflates a speculative football. He is done with speculative marketing. While many will undoubtedly admit that the wheat board is not a cure-all. and does not solve all the problems in their marketing picture,
1610	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Sinnott
the farmers of western Canada have no intention of permitting speculative trading to fix the prices they receive for their commodities.
Further down the same editorial says:
It must be with a great deal of pride that the Canadian wheat board recognizes the vote of confidence which they have received from the producers of Manitoba in the referendum. At the same time, it lays a greater degree of responsibility on the Canadian wheat board. Undoubtedly, from time to time, there will be criticism from producers. It is to be anticipated that the board will be receptive to such criticism, so long as it is intended to be constructive.
I believe the wheat board should go much further today and market rye and flax. I have the market reports here, but I shall not put them on the record. The farmers know what they reveal. The fluctuation in flax has been over a dollar within the last three months. The man who was fortunate enough to get his crop threshed received $4.00, while the man who has not got it threshed will receive $5.00 if he ever does get it threshed. This leads me back to the question of stable prices, and I am in favour of them. I hope the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will have something to say about the drop in the price of eggs. People who have paid high prices all winter for feed for chickens are going to suffer a loss. The government should step in and do something about it.
I do not want to take up any more time, but I should like to assure hon. members that I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I am speaking on the amendment to the amendment, Mr. Speaker. I should like to read the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) first, then read the amendment to the amendment and give my reasons for speaking against the amendment of the hon. member for Assiniboia, which reads:
That the following words be added to the address:
"This house regrets, however, that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to make provision for the immediate payment to producers of 75 per cent of the initial price of farm stored grain."
The amendment to the amendment reads as follows:
That all the words in the amendment after the word "regrets" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"the serious difficulties encountered by the western farmers in harvesting their crops, and commends Your Excellency's advisers for the continuing attention they have given to the problems caused thereby, and is confident that effective measures will continue to be taken to help the farmers in meeting these problems."
I support the amendment to the amendment, and I am giving my further reasons as to why I spoke against the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia. If you will follow it closely, Mr. Speaker, you will find


that the amendment does not take into consideration at all those farmers who have their crops under the snow today. It only takes into consideration the payment to farmers who have grain in store now. These members who profess to want to be helpful do not even consider the men who have their grain outside in the snow, but they are willing to help those who already have their grain in store on the farms. I am not in accord with that policy because the poor man who has 400 or 500 bushels in store in the granaries will have little coming to him, while the man who has possibly 40,000 or 50,000 bushels in store-and there are some of those in parts of Saskatchewan-will be getting the big help. In other words the help will be coming to those who need it least. To make a long story short, the man who has his grain outside in the swath is more entitled to help than anybody that I know of; and I hope the government will see to it, after the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has come back and sized up the situation, that some assistance per acre will be given rather than this assistance to those who have -their grain stored in the granaries at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, a campaign has been carried on by certain people in this country to discourage the actions of the wheat board. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce), who is a neighbour of mine, touched on the subject a little bit, but I am going to touch on it further and possibly make the situation a bit clearer. Regardless of the campaign that was put on against them, the farmers voted in the coarse grain referendum in Manitoba. In that referendum 67 per cent of those eligible voted; and 89 per cent of those voted for the continued handling of coarse grains through the Canadian wheat board.
To put the situation more clearly may I say this. The hon. member for Selkirk did not speak of his own experience in selling grain this fall, but I am speaking from my own experience. I sold my flax for $4.01 a few days after it was combined. That same flax, six weeks later, was selling for $5.01 net. There is no fairness in an up and down market of that kind. We as farmers and as businessmen do not need to be told by anyone what should be done. From our past experience with regard to the marketing of grain we know that if an enormous amount of tough, damp and feed wheat and coarse grain had been dumped on the market, at the mercy of the grain exchange, our losses would have been colossal to say the least.
The farmers of Manitoba are happy at the present time with the final payments they have received for their coarse grain and the payments they will receive for their 1950-51 wheat crop. The money they are receiving

rightly belongs to the growers, and with it going into the pockets of the growers the situation is much more satisfactory than it would be if the money were going into the pockets of those residing on Wellington Crescent and the gamblers of the grain exchange.


An hon. Member:: Suppose the market had gone down. What then?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Those who weep crocodile tears weep them under a cloak, pretending to speak with sympathy and understanding of the farmers' problems. They do not need to inflate the speculative football of the grain exchange any longer. Perhaps it would be better for them to put forth the idea that the consumers of wheat throughout all of Canada would not mind paying another 15 cents a bushel over and above the international wheat agreement price. We, the farmers in western Canada, and all of the people in western Canada do not have a protective wall. We are therefore forced to pay this tariff for almost everything produced in eastern Canada. The majority of the population of Canada resides in Ontario and Quebec. If those people were shown, through the medium of the newspapers and by the people who are responsible, that the farmers are entitled to 15 cents a bushel more for the domestic wheat which is consumed in Canada, I am sure there would be a better understanding between the east and the west. If more of that idea were put forth I am sure-


James Arthur Ross: Why only 15 cents?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Oh, maybe I should say $1.50. If I were a politician I would say $1.50; but I state facts.


James Arthur Ross: You are a statesman, are you?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I want to be honest. I do not pretend to be a politician. I try to state the facts as I see them. If I cannot come to this House of Commons and state facts rather than play politics, then I will tell the hon. member for Souris that I do not want to be here at all. There is too much politics played with the people of Canada.


James Arthur Ross: What is the 15 cents based on? What is the comparative figure?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: It is based on the international wheat agreement price, in connection with what we sell as class II wheat. There has to be a happy medium.


James Arthur Ross: That is 50 cents, not 15 cents.
The Address-Mr. Hetland


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: If you consider the 40 to 50 million bushels of wheat we sell as class II and what we consume in Canada, and couple that with the 200 million bushels we are selling now under the international wheat agreement, I think you will see that my estimate comes pretty close to the mark.


William Scottie Bryce: I did not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman when he was speaking, Mr. Speaker, but with your permission I should like to ask him a question. What justification has he for saying that I am not talking from my own practical experience this fall in selling grain?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: From the statement you made today. You quoted from the newspaper.


William Scottie Bryce: No, I did not. I want that matter corrected. I quoted the article in the Manitoba Co-operator, what they said about the plebiscite, and what the Winnipeg Tribune said about income tax. I gave my own personal experience with regard to income tax and my own personal experience with regard to selling rye and flax. I hope the hon. member will accept that statement.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Will you permit me a question? How much did you receive for your flax?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


William Scottie Bryce: I do not think that is a fair question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: As a matter of fact, he had no flax.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. As we are not in committee, I do not think this is the time for the asking of questions.


Mr. J. I. Hetland (Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word on the amendment to the amendment. I am opposed to the amendment for one good reason, namely that it does not take in enough territory.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: It takes in plenty.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: No, it does not. The amendment to the amendment allows the government to give advances to farmers who have not threshed a bushel of grain. The amendment mentions 75 per cent on stored grain.
I bought grain for twelve years, and I know that you cannot have grain stored any place on the farm and get an advance on it unless it is dry; and it has to be well housed. Last fall the majority of the farmers threshed their crops damp, and a lot of the grain has a moisture content of 20 per cent. This advance is rot going to help any farmer who
1612	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Hetland has tough grain. Therefore it just leaves a small group who will get some benefit from the amendment. But the amendment to the amendment would permit the government to advance money on grain that is in the swath, or that has not even been swathed. These are the people who need help, certainly not the man who has well stored grain that is dry. He does not need help very much. The average man can go to the bank and get an advance, but the man who has his crop in the swath certainly cannot get an advance.
This government have told us several times that they are considering some plan to help the farmers in need. Any plan that is brought forward by this government has to be more or less foolproof. I do not know of anything that would please the opposition more-I will not say all of the opposition, but some of them-than to have some scheme that was not foolproof. What ammunition they would have to use in the next provincial election if the scheme failed. Therefore any scheme that is put forward by thq government has to be foolproof.
If we adopted the amendment to the motion we would need an army of inspectors to inspect all the grain. If you went to a farmer and told him that his grain was tough I can just imagine what kind of a reception you would get. All the farmers believe their grain is dry. Naturally that is wishful thinking. The elevator man and the man who went around inspecting would have to test this grain, and would have to tell the farmers that their grain was not fit to justify an advance. Then he would certainly run into a lot of difficulty there.
What about the expense? It is a little different in the United States. The government assumes all the expense in that country, but here the wheat board would have to assume all this expense. And who would pay for it? The farmer himself. It is true that the government is trying to come out with some plan, and I believe when the Minister of Trade and Commerce comes back he will have the O.K. from all our farm organizations. Therefore I am very glad to support the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: I rise on a point of order with reference to this alleged subamendment. I submit that it is not an amendment. It is simply a means whereby a further opportunity will be given to members supporting the government to indulge in further back-scratching of the government. As I read the subamendment, it is something that derogates from the subject amended. Before you is a motion to approve the speech from the throne.


An amendment is moved to that. This purports to be an amendment to the amendment. Approval of the government can be given by voting in favour of the motion, but this is an extra approval. It provides:
That all the words in the amendment after the word "regrets" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"the serious difficulties encountered by the western farmers in harvesting their crops, and commends Your Excellency's advisers for the continuing attention they have given to the problems caused thereby, and is confident that effective measures will continue to be taken to help the farmers in meeting these problems."
I submit that what purports to be a subamendment requires no argument. It is in effect not an amendment, but a further motion of approval and approbation of the government and its advisers. I ask Your Honour to rule that it is clearly out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in support of the point raised by the hon. member for Lake Centre may I quote a sentence from May's Parliamentary Practice, thirteenth edition, at page 291. It reads as follows:
An amendment to a proposed amendment cannot be moved, if it proposes to leave out all the words of such proposed amendment: but in such a case the first amendment must be negatived before the second can be offered.
It may be argued, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of strict technicality that the amendment of the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Bater) does not strike out all the words of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) because it does leave in three words: "This house regrets".


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: That is the important part of the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no. But it does strike out all the substance of the amendment and proposes an alternative proposition, which I submit is not in order for the reasons I have just given, and not in order because it is not relevant to the subject of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Assiniboia. The hon. member for Assiniboia submitted a distinct proposition. That proposition does not exclude the consideration of other matters such as grain under the snow. It is a distinct proposition with respect to farm stored grain. The amendment of the hon. member for The Battlefords seeks to strike out completely that distinct proposition and substitute another one; and I submit that is out of order on the basis of the citation I just read from page 291 of May's Parliamentary Practice, thirteenth edition, for it would) deny to the house the right to vote on my colleague's amendment. While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I might raise a question as to what might be the course from here on;

The Address-Subamendment whether or not the result of this amendment, would be out of order because the hon. mem-if it were allowed, might be the defeat of the ber for The Battlefords had erased the amend-government at the hands of the government's ment of the hon. member for Assiniboia, but own supporters, because, Mr. Speaker, I think he did make the remark that the important it would be in order to anticipate what might words of the amendment are that somebody happen.	regrets something. We left that regret in.


Mr. Smith (Moose Mountain):: Are you
worrying about that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; I would be very glad to join with my hon. friend in that.


Alphonse Fournier: That would be out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that since this amendment has been moved by a government supporter I presume he has support for it in the government ranks, and that one might even anticipate that the subamendment will carry and then the house will have before it the amendment as amended. Since that amendment as amended would be no longer the words of the hon. member for Assiniboia but rather the words of the hon. member for The Battlefords I assume that the hon. member for The Battlefords would get support from his colleagues, and that the amendment as amended would carry. Then, Mr. Speaker, we would have the motion for the address in reply to the speech from the throne amended by the amendment of a private member on the floor of this house; and it is usually understood that unless the motion for the adoption of the address in reply to the speech from the throne carries without amendment it is a vote of non-confidence in the government. Therefore I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what the hon. member for The Battlefords has done is to set a trap for the supporters of the government. Every Liberal will be faced with the dilemma whether to support his subamendment in the final stage in order to vote for the proposition he has put forward, or whether to vote against it in order to make sure that the motion for an address in reply is not amended, which would mean that the government had been defeated.


Mr. Decore:: How do you know?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We will deal with that situation later. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you should consider the point as to whether it is in order, in view of what I have quoted from May that when an amendment is before the house a proposed subamendment, which is a distinctly different proposition, should only come forward after the original proposition has been dealt with.


Alphonse Fournier: First, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre stated that it


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whom does the hon. member mean by "we"? I thought it was the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Bater) who moved the subamendment.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He and the rest of the cabinet.


Alphonse Fournier: I just learned of the amendment to the amendment when it was brought into the house, and I can assure hon. members that I was not a party to it when it was brought in. However, I like to discuss these points of order, especially when they are discussed by such learned confreres as the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It has been pointed out that the taking away of all the words after the word "regrets" would be out of order, because it would be foreign to the amendment, and in support of the hon. member's contention he cities May.
Well, perhaps I might be permitted to cite Beauchesne, whose work is recognized as an authority here, and who says that an amendment to an amendment should not enlarge upon the scope of the amendment, but should deal with matters that are not covered by the amendment.
We are not enlarging upon the amendment. The first amendment moved was an expression of regret that the government had failed, so it is alleged, to pay 75 per cent of the initial price of farm stored grain. We say we do regret the plight of western farmers; everybody does. I cannot see why hon. gentlemen opposite would object to expressing that regret publicly in the house, so as to show these farmers the sympathy we all have for them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alphonse Fournier: Well, I do not know if an expression of regret by these gentlemen is a matter for laughter. I do not take it that way.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: We want to see more than expressions of regret.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: We want action.


Alphonse Fournier: You are acting every day, but with very little result. We are doing the best we can, and we are telling these farmers in the subamendment that we know about the serious difficulties encountered by western farmers in harvesting their crops.

The Address-Subamendment The two amendments relate to the same subject matter, but in a different way. We do not express regret in the amendment to the amendment that the government has not paid 75 per cent of the initial price of farm stored grain, which could not be delivered to the elevators, but we say here that this house commends His Excellency's advisers "for the continuing attention they have given to the problems caused thereby, and are confident that effective measures will continue to be taken to help the farmers in meeting these problems."


James Arthur Ross: You wish them well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain.


John George Diefenbaker: A confession of confidence.


Alphonse Fournier: This subamendment gives a good many explanations-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You mean it needs a good many.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But no help to the farmers.


Alphonse Fournier: If hon. members will look at citation 371 in Beauchesne's third edition perhaps they will be satisfied as to the legality or the propriety of the subamendment. This citation reads:
A subamendment which proposed an alternative to the original amendment is in order provided it is relevant to the question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: "Provided it is relevant".


Alphonse Fournier: Would the hon. member say that this subamendment is not relevant to the plight of the western farmers? The only difference is that we do not fix an amount that we agree to pay to these farmers.


James Arthur Ross: You do not offer any help.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would you like an answer?


Alphonse Fournier: No. The subamendment is certainly relevant to the question, because in the speeches to which I have listened on this question there has been an expression of regret that these farmers will suffer, especially during this season, if something is not done right now. The subamendment moved by the hon. member for The Battlefords goes into that same question. On that point of relevancy I submit the subamendment is in order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May 1 have a moment to answer the comments of the Minister of Public Works, and his attempt to argue that the subamendment is relative to the amendment. I based my objection to it on the citation I read from page 291 of May's thirteenth edition. The Minister of Public Works has based


his defence of the amendment to the amendment on citation 371 in Beauchesne's third edition. But I have emphasized the last few words of that citation, where it states that a subamendment which proposes an alternative to the original amendment is in order "provided it is relevant to the question". The amendment of the hon. member for Assiniboia is that such and such a thing should be done with respect to farm stored grain. There may be other problems facing the farmers of western Canada, but his amendment deals only with that one problem and submits a distinct proposition as to what should be done about it.
On the other hand the subamendment raises a different question altogether. By the process of an expanded negative it simply wipes out the proposition set forth by the hon. member for Assiniboia, denying the house any chance to vote on it, and substitutes something quite different. As a matter of fact what it wipes out is a substantial proposition that something be done for the farmers, and what it substitutes is a pious expression of sympathy. I submit it is not relevant at all. It is a substitution of an alternative which is quite different. If it had been added to the amendment, it might have been in order. It certainly would be in order as a proposition for presentation after the first amendment has been disposed of. But as to the matter of relevancy I am sure the Minister of Public Works realizes that it just does not qualify.


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, no.


Mr. Speaker:: When the subamendment was moved I must admit to the house that I was quite concerned as to whether it was in order, even though considerable latitude is traditionally allowed in amendments to the address in reply. During the interval I have endeavoured to look up the precedents. Hon. members will realize that I have had only a limited time at my disposal in which to do so.
Hon. members who have taken part in the discussion of the question as to whether or not the subamendment is in order have first faced the question of its relevancy. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said that the subamendment is not relevant to the amendment, in its present form.
The amendment reads:
"This house regrets, however, that Your Excellency's advisers have tailed to make provision for the immediate payment to producers of 75 per cent of the initial price of farm stored grain."
The subamendment reads:
"This house regrets the serious difficulties encountered by the western farmers in harvesting their crops, and commends Your Excellency's advisers for the continuing attention they have given

to the problems caused thereby, and is confident that effective measures will continue to be taken to help the farmers in meeting these problems."
The Minister of Public Works referred to citation 371 in Beauchesne's third edition, which reads:
A subamendment which proposed an alternative to the original amendment is in order provided it is relevant to the question.
One important question I must decide is that raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It has been argued that the amendment deals with one question only and that the subamendment does not refer specifically to that matter. It seems to me that the subamendment is wide enough to include the question which is brought forward by the main amendment. In view of the fact that the subamendment does include the question raised by the main amendment I do not see how it could be irrelevant to the main amendment, within the meaning of citation 371 of Beauchesne's third edition.
Hon. members will realize that during the debate on the speech from the throne I have allowed considerable latitude in the amendments which have been proposed, and I feel that I shall have to allow the subamendment to stand on the question of relevancy.
The further question has been raised that the subamendment strikes out most of the words of the amendment. During the time I have had to look into this question I find that a similar motion was moved on April 13, 1899, and I refer to volume XXXIV of the Journals for 1899, page 55, as follows:


Mr. Clark moved: in amendment, seconded by Mr. Hale, that the following paragraph be added to the said proposed motion, viz:
"10. That this house deems it expedient to inform His Excellency that in view of the widespread charges of incapacity, misconduct and corruption in the administration of public affairs connected with the Yukon, it is the duty of the government to appoint, without delay, an independent judicial commission to make a thorough investigation into that subject and report the result;"
And the question on the amendment being proposed;


Mr. Bertram moved: , in amendment to the said proposed amendment, seconded by Mr. Bourassa, that all the words after the second "that" in the amendment be left out,-
Hon. members will realize that up to that point the subamendment moved in 1899 was similar to the subamendment which has been proposed today.
-and the words "we have observed with pleasure that on receipt of complaints against some of the officials in the Yukon district, His Excellency's government took prompt action to enquire into the matter of such complaints by appointing Mr. William Ogilvie as a commissioner for that purpose. Having entire confidence in the integrity and ability of Mr. Ogilvie, we are satisfied that his enquiry will be impartial and thorough, and that
The Address-Mr. Argue it will place His Excellency's advisers in possession of all information necessary to enable them to do justice to all parties concerned," inserted instead thereof;
I have not been able to find a parallel case or a ruling contrary to the one given at that time and while, as I have said, I have some doubt, I feel that, in view of my finding on relevancy and of the precedent of 1899 which I have just referred to, I should allow the subamendment to stand.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I regret that the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Eater) has moved this subamendment. It is not that I object to the wording of the subamendment as being something to which we might not devote some time, but the fact is that an affirmative vote for the subamendment, which is almost sure to result, will eliminate any opportunity of voting upon the proposition that an advance of 75 per cent of the initial price be made to farmers 'for grain stored on the farm. In my opinion it is a disservice to our farmers for a western member of parliament to move such a pious amendment and by so doing prevent a vote on a proposition which is so important to the welfare of western Canada at this time. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) said the amendment would then read:
This house regrets the serious difficulties encountered by the western farmers in harvesting their crops-
What earthly good is it for this house to say it regrets that a serious situation exists? The farmers do not want sympathy from parliament; they want action from the government.
The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Hetland) has said that the amendment asking for an advance of 75 per cent on farm stored grain did not go far enough. When I was considering the substance of my own amendment I considered whether or not I should add to it an indication of want of confidence in the government for not making provision for financial assistance to farmers in connection with grain under the snow. I did not add that feature to my amendment for what I considered was a good reason. On November 15 the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) replied to a question of mine, and I quote from page 1041 of Hansard as follows:
I have stated before that the government is actively considering the problem of wheat, oats and barley that are still in the fields. Representatives of the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Canadian wheat board are in western Canada at the present time exploring the situation with the wheat pools and with elevator companies, and I hope very shortly to be able to announce a method of financing wheat that could not be harvested.

The Address-Mr. Argue
I was willing to take the word of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the government was dealing and would deal with the matter of providing assistance for farmers who have grain under the snow. Any suggestion by the hon. member for Humboldt that my amendment does not go far enough merely indicates that the hon. member has no faith in the announcement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. 1 did not think it was necessary to move a subamendment saying this house regrets that the government has not decided to do a particular thing when the government, through a responsible minister, announced to parliament a short time ago that action would be taken along those lines. The hon. member for Humboldt said that the amendment to the amendment would enable the government to advance money on crops out under the snow. Of course the government does not need an amendment to the amendment or a motion by parliament to advance money on crops under snow. The government has ample power now to make that provision, and it certainly has the power to introduce legislation for that purpose. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Hetland) went on to cite difficulties that would stand in the way of a 75 per cent advance payment on farm stored grain. He was opposed to it, and he gave his reasons. He said it would be an expense to the wheat board. But it would not need to be an expense to the wheat board if the government brought in proper legislation to make such a provision. If adequate legislation were brought in it would not mean any expense to western farmers. This is an emergency. The farmers need emergency action, and to suggest that necessary emergency action should be a further burden on the farmers of the west is not doing them a service.
The hon. member for Humboldt raised ' another bogeyman. He said that money could not be lent on tough grain. You can sell tough grain and get a good price for it. You can sell damp grain and get a pretty good price for it.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: You cannot get an advance on damp grain.


Hazen Robert Argue: You cannot get an advance on anything from this government. That is what I am complaining about. You could under the terms of the amendment I moved, even though the hon. member for Humboldt is objecting to an advance on farm stored grain. The hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Bater), by moving an amendment to the amendment and getting the support of the cabinet, has prevented the house taking a
[Mr. Argue.1

decision on the question of an advance on farm-stored grain. In the first part of the subamendment he regrets the serious difficulties encountered by the western farmers in harvesting their crops. We all regret that. It is hardly necessary to put it in an amendment. Then the subamendment continues:
. . . and commends Your Excellency's advisers for the continuing attention they have given to the problems caused thereby-
I do not mind their giving continuing attention to this matter or anything else. We do not want merely continuing attention; we want action. The last part of the subamendment reads:
-and is confident that effective measures will continue to be taken to help the farmers in meeting these problems.
I say that effective measures have not been taken, and for that reason I will certainly vote against the subamendment. As I said at the outset, I regret sincerely that a western member, with the help and support of other western Liberal members, in the face of the critical situation confronting the farmers of western Canada, would endeavour by this method to prevent parliament from voting on a proposition that is absolutely necessary for their welfare.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), after having listened to the arguments presented by the various members who have spoken in this debate. I am one of those members who are not very well informed about the details of the wheat marketing situation, but I think members who have spoken in favour of the amendment have given valid reasons for the government taking such action. I also think that, according to reports we have read in the press of the statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the amendment is not far out of line with government policy.
When the hon. member for Assiniboia was speaking the other evening I am sure a good many members were interested in the figures he presented dealing with the income tax collected from farmers in various provinces of Canada. I am sure many of us were much concerned with the apparent disparity in the amounts of tax collected. I am one of a goodly number of members in the house who look forward with some interest to an explanation of those figures on the part of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). I am not going to say any more on that point at this time because sometimes explanations can be given for bare figures that present a somewhat different picture.

The amendment largely has to do with something that concerns the life of the body. I am going to take the opportunity presented by this debate to deal with something that I consider concerns the life of the spirit, and a good many other persons in Canada are of the same opinion. I want to speak for a few minutes on a matter that is of great concern to many of my constituents and other Canadians at this time. It is a matter that is of great concern to the members of this group. I refer to the mystery surrounding the possible release of the former nazi general, Kurt Meyer.
I am anxious to express the anxiety of this group because we know a large number of Canadians are concerned about this question. All members of the group for whom I am speaking have received resolutions from trade unions, Canadian Legion branches, women's organizations, and also quite a number of letters. In addition, the press generally throughout Canada has shown in various editorials considerable concern, and with respect to my own constituency editorials in the press have expressed similar concern. In this, the press is reflecting the concern and opinion of a large number of Canadian people. I was interested to receive only yesterday a letter from a Canadian of French descent in my constituency who is over 75 years of age, a man on whose logging sleds I used to ride as a boy forty-five years ago. He writes quite a touching letter to me. He cannot understand why, if this man has been sentenced as a war criminal and in view of what has been suffered by Canadian's as a result of his actions, there is a possibility of his being released.
It is because of that concern that I feel justified in taking a few minutes to deal with this very important matter. I must explain before proceeding that it is not a question of a vindictive attitude toward a person or an enemy. This is a matter that concerns the Canadian people from the point of view of justice, the principles we have declared from time to time in this house and throughout the country, and from the point of view of national policy. It is on that basis I wish to make some representations this afternoon. The concern of the Canadian people has been considerably increased as a result of the newspaper account written by Mr. Douglas How, Canadian Press correspondent, dealing with the fact that Kurt Meyer had been given several days holiday from prison in Germany. In view of the concern of the Canadian public as a whole, I think parliament and the people of Canada are entitled to a frank and complete statement from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton)
The Address-Mr. Herridge before this session ends. Only something of that nature can allay the fears of many persons throughout the country.
In order to bring the picture into focus within the compass of one very short speech, I want to review briefly the developments in connection with this matter. I find that the question was first raised by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the external affairs committee of 1946. At that time he brought to the attention of the committee the fact that the War Measures Act had expired, and that it was quite possible that the release of Kurt Meyer could be obtained because he was formally held under the terms of that act. I judge from a reading of that evidence, and a reading of Hansard of a slightly later date, that it was because of the alertness of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) that shortly afterwards the government introduced the War Crimes Act.
I am going to read briefly from the debate in connection with that act. At page 4382 of Hansard for 1946 the hon. member for Lake Centre had this to say in dealing with the question:
In other words, while now the minister takes the view that these regulations were drafted as part and parcel of international law, or under the powers of His Majesty under royal warrant, the regulations provided that they were drafted entirely under the War Measures Act with the result-at least so I contended-that in view of the fact that penalties under the War Measures Act were restricted to five years or a fine of $2,000, no statute could grant to a subsidiary measure by way of order in council passed thereunder the power to impose a heavier penalty. Among others, Kurt Meyer, a prisoner in Dorchester penitentiary, might have made an application to the courts for the purpose of determining that his imprisonment was illegal and, as a result, the doors of that penitentiary might have been opened, should the court find that an illegal sentence, beyond that provided for under the War Measures Act, had been imposed.
While the minister has said there was an opinion from the Department of Justice that such a possibility was not a probability, I would point out that in giving evidence on the matter before the committee on external affairs the deputy minister of justice said he had no doubt that a forceful argument could be made in support of the contention that I advanced to the contrary.
So I presume, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians generally have to thank the alertness of the hon. member for Lake Centre for the fact that Kurt Meyer is not free today.
Proceeding with a short review of this case, I find that I raised the question on March 2 of this year during a debate on the Defence Production Act, as a result of receiving a number of representations from individuals, trade unions and the Legion. I did not get very far, as I was ruled out of order. I was able to express my views only briefly. Then on October 19 the question of Meyer's release was raised by the hon. member for Lake

The Address-Mr. Decore parliament what are the regulations in. this British prison as to treatment of inmates. When the government does this, it might answer the question it has so long evaded:	Does it intend to release
Meyer?
Until this question is answered, many Canadians will continue to fear that a commander of SS troops found responsible for the murder of Canadian prisoners is to be given his freedom. That such a man should be set free to serve in NATO forces is an intolerable proposition to almost everyone except the communists, who would he handed a choice piece of anti-democratic propaganda.
The government can settle this uncertainty quite easily. All that is required is a statement that under no circumstances will Meyer be released.
The release of Kurt Meyer for use in a future German army is, I am sure, in the opinion of the majority of thh Canadian people completely morally indefensible. On that basis, if Hitler were alive we could seek his support as an ally in the defence of freedom. Just let us realize, Mr. Speaker, that if this man were released and assumed command of a German division, under the terms of military law Canadian troops serving in Germany would be required to salute this German war criminal when passing him on the street. I am sure there are a great number of Canadians who do not view that situation with any relish.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the circumstances and in view of the concern felt by the Canadian people, the release of Kurt Meyer would be an offence against the memory of our gallant dead. It would be an offence and an outrage against their sorrowing next of kin. It would show a complete lack of consideration of the efforts made and the fighting done by the veterans of this country in two great wars. It would mean the complete disregard of the opinion of the great majority of the Canadian people. His release would be a violation of our declared democratic principles and practices. As a policy it would have, psychologically, most unfortunate effects. It would affect the morale of the Canadian people. It would affect their confidence and faith in our democratic cause. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker-and I speak with some heat on this question-in the long run democracy and freedom can only be satisfactorily defended by people who believe in freedom. Public concern demands from the minister before this session ends a complete and frank statement concerning this whole question. Only that will allay the fears of the Canadian people at this time.
In conclusion I say that if we have faith in freedom's truth, let us prove it by our acts.


John Decore: I rise to make a few brief remarks in regard to the subamendment before the house. As a member coming from western Canada I appreciate the difficulty the farmers are facing today
[Mr. Herridge.i
with regard to their grain. One of these difficulties is that a lot of the grain that has been threshed is stored on the farm, and the farmer is not able to sell it owing to lack of facilities. But that is not the only difficulty. In introducing his amendment to the main motion no doubt the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue) had this in mind. But I say that, although a serious problem, it is not the main problem that faces the farmer in western Canada today. The farmer is western Canada has had similar difficulties in previous years. He has also had a lot of grain on hand, but through the facilities of our wheat board he has been able to sell his grain eventually. No doubt the same thing will happen at this time.
The main problem that faces the farmer in western Canada today is that, according to the last figures I have, in the province of Alberta some 230 million bushels of grain are still lying under the snow. In Saskatchewan there are some 90 million bushels of wheat and 14 per cent of the coarse grain; in Manitoba, which is probably the most fortunate province, there is about $8 million worth of grain under the snow. The province of Alberta is probably in the worst position. That applies to Saskatchewan as well. In these two provinces we have a lot of grain that has not been threshed. That is the condition with which the farmer is faced today. It is something that happened owing to the weather, conditions beyond his control. For that reason the subamendment is moved, and I shall read it once again:
This house regrets the serious difficulties encountered by the western farmers in harvesting their crops, and commends Your Excellency's advisers for the continuing attention they have given to the problems caused thereby, and is confident that effective measures will continue to be taken to help the farmers in meeting these problems.
That is the position in which we find ourselves today. We have had assurances from the members of the cabinet in the house from time to time, and I notice that according to the Winnipeg Free Press of December 1 the Minister of Trade and Commerce made a 'statement in Calgary before the Alberta wheat pool. This is what he said in part:
The minister in charge of grain marketing said at the annual meeting of the Alberta wheat pool he is prepared to recommend legislation for interim credit for farmers with unthreshed grain and those who, for one reason or another, have been unable to deliver their grain to country elevators.
When we have this statement, if it is the statement the minister made, certainly there is no reason why the hon. member for Assini-boia should express regret in this house in the amendment that is before us now. I know the hon. member for Assiniboia was

not very happy when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) went out west. No doubt some of my Social Credit friends from Alberta were not very happy when he went to Alberta.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: We have no worry.


John Decore: The hon. member for Assini-boia was not very happy when the Minister of Trade and Commerce made this statement which I have just read; but the fact remains that this government is interested in the problems of the western farmers, and for that reason I am in favour of the subamendment.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: When I came into the house this afternoon I intended to speak for a few minutes in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) on Monday, which reads as follows:
This house regrets, however, that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to make provision for the immediate payment to producers of 75 per cent of the initial price of farm stored grain.
I believe this amendment is quite sound, regardless of the fact that the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Hetland) says it is not possible to get an advance on tough grain. Advances have been given on tough grain before, can be given now and will be given again. Possibly that is one method of clearing his conscience. However, they will have some questions to answer later on.
I find that the mover of the subamendment is my neighbour to the east, just the meridian separating us, and the seconder happens to be immediately west; but I have to disagree with both in the interests of farmers in western Canada. The subamendment reads as follows:
This house regrets the serious difficulties encountered by the western farmers in harvesting their crops-
Let me pause there for a moment. A little help would be a whole lot better than a lot of sympathy. While the farmers in the west have had sympathy over the past number of years, since I came to the country and before, a little help would be much more appreciated. The amendment continues:
-and commends Your Excellency's advisers for the continuing attention they have given to the problems caused thereby,-
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing whatever to commend there, because while they have been looking on, nothing, nothing, nothing has been done up to the present time. If anybody has any doubts about things being done up to the present time let him read in the Ottawa Citizen of yesterday an article under the heading: "U.K. wants
The Address-Mr. Fair wheat but none ready." This is by Frank Swanson, Citizen parliamentary writer, and it reads as follows:
Agriculture Minister Gardiner said last night that Britain would take more high grade wheat from Canada if Canada could provide it.
Just back from Europe and talks with British food officials, Mr. Gardiner said that the only thing that was preventing Canada selling more wheat to Britain was the lack here. With much of the 1951 crop lying in the fields of western Canada under snow, it's just not available now.
"At the present time, Britain is taking all the wheat she can get from us and is prepared to take more. But we have not got the supplies available to ship them. Britain wants the wheat right now, not next spring when the grain out in the fields should be available," he said.
While in Britain, Mr. Gardiner talked with Lord Woolton, lord president of the council, and with the new Conservative agriculture minister, Major Sir Thomas Lionel Dugdale. He also talked with Right Hon. Gwilym Lloyd George, new minister of food.
The U.K. needed food shipments generally, he said, and was particularly in need of more wheat products. But she was finding difficulty in finding the dollars to pay for more food.
The British food ministry last summer indicated the U.K. would be interested in making additional purchases of high grade wheat from this country, outside the international wheat agreement.
"The U.K. is still interested but we just haven't got the wheat to sell right now," he said in an interview.
May I comment on that and on the central part of the amendment which I read, Mr. Speaker. It is well known that for many months individuals and farm organizations in western Canada have been prodding the government, trying to get some action with respect to moving the crop out of the elevators in the west and into delivery position at the head of the lakes. Because of that I understand that the wheat board had had difficulty in getting sufficient grain to fulfil their commitments. Had the government been looking after the interests of the farmer I believe sufficient storage space would have been available in western Canada to take care of much of the crop that was held up and is still stored on the farms. At the present time we have millions of bushels of millable wheat needed by Great Britain remaining on the farms of western Canada. Because of the lack of space at the head of the lakes, the lack of box cars and of ships to move that grain, it is not in a position in which it can be delivered. So for the time being we are losing the sale of at least a portion of our wheat.
The amendment to the amendment continues:
-and is confident that effective measures will continue to be taken to help the farmers in meeting these problems.
I have pointed out that up to the present time no effective measures have been taken. Those of us in this group, the Social Credi-ters, cannot be true to our constituents by
1622	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell supporting a do-nothing policy. In effect that is what government policy has been up to the present time. We have been told that the world needs food, and Canada has been asked to do its share in supplying that food. I feel the farmers of Canada have been doing everything possible in times of pressure to fulfil that requirement. But because of government policy there has been withheld from the farmers a proper share of the national income, proper prices for the things they produce, as well as allowances through tariffs and other means whereby they are charged exorbitant prices for the things they have to buy. If the farmers took the same position as many other occupational groups have taken they would go on strike. That, of course, is not the nature of farmers, and I am not for one moment advocating that they should do so. But had they taken the same stand as many other occupational groups we would not have the production we are having today. When conditions are made satisfactory for the farmers we can look for much greater production.
I do not think it is necessary for me to say much more at this time. I have already spoken twice in the debate on the address in reply. The high cost of living is another condition about which the government has not done much. The single thing they intended to do this session was to bring in legislation dealing with the prevention of price fixing by manufacturers and suppliers. Since that has now been referred to a committee and, so far as we can see, will not be dealt with at the present session, this government has not taken one single step to bring down the cost of living.
Some people are taking undue advantage of the situation. With the exception of the price of hot dogs which, I see, has been reduced to the extent of 5 cents from the 20 cents being charged, the prices in the restaurants on Sparks street are not coming down. To make up for that, perhaps, some of those restaurants are taking advantage of another gyp game by using tea bags time after time, so that the fourth or fifth user of a tea bag gets no colour whatsoever in the water put in the teapot.
In my opinion this represents a danger to the health of the people in this city. I am not sure whether the practice which I shall now describe is being followed in other places, but I have been told by people who have been supplied with these used tea bags that it is done down on Sparks street. It is customary for many people to stir the tea bag with a spoon, to dip the spoon into the teapot and stir the contents in an effort to get a little juice out of the tea bag.


Then they eat ice cream or some other dessert, using the same spoon, and by that method they are in danger of contracting some disease from which a former user of the tea bag might have been- suffering. I say the city health inspectors should act as they have on other occasions, and check some of these irregularities now taking place.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I hear groans, but I take it the government has to take full responsibility for those groans. I have only a few comments to make. It has been most interesting to note what has happened in the last three days, to look back for instance to what happened in this chamber on Monday evening when there was a sense of what, to the uninitiated like myself, looked like something approaching panic, if one could judge from the distressed action on the other side of the gangway. But now all is well because, apparently, they have found a funkhole, and they are now going to crawl into that and get out of their trouble.
I am not clear in my own mind just why this has happened. I cannot be sure whether it is because they do not know yet what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) actually did say when he was in Calgary and because nothing can be done until he comes back and tells them what he did say, so they will know what they are going to do.
That is one possible explanation. For myself, I might say that I was prepared to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) because, as I understood it, what it was doing was to assist, by an advance, the farmers who are in great distress owing to what we usually call acts of God; and because I further understood that, if properly administered, there is no reason in the world why it should cost the public treasury one cent. They were going to receive an advance on their own assets, by reason of an overwhelming calamity which had befallen them. That seemed to me a reasonable thing to do, and I was prepared to vote for it.
As I say, I do not know just why the government has taken the attitude it has. But one thing I think should be very clear; no one should doubt what has happened, particularly in the west, and that, in spite of the honeyed phrases of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier). All that is being offered to the farmers in distress is some kind words. And, of course, if they could only be here and see how those kind words of the Minister of Public Works are offered, perhaps it would help them. Actually they are not here; they do not even hear those words uttered. They

are being left to face their own calamity without anything more substantial than those kind words.
That, of course, is subject to this, that when the Minister of Trade and Commerce does come back we may see something very different. Perhaps something may happen on Tuesday, after the event which is to take place on Monday, in which we are all interested. And there are two days left in this week, too. At any rate it may be that an explanation will be given when the Minister of Trade and Commerce comes back. We have had many things explained by him when he has come back from his various journeyings.
Meantime the situation is absurd. I offer no opinion about the regularity or otherwise of the amendment. It has been ruled in order, and therefore I have nothing further to say about it. All I can say is that, if it is according to the rules, then it does not seem to me to be in accordance with common sense or in accordance with the ideals of responsible government; because we are in the precise position where a genuine amendment is going to be superseded by one that is merely adding a lot of soft words for which the government's own supporters can vote.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me one hon. member who has just spoken has indicated that there is a much more important aspect to this discussion than emerges from the rather unique subamendment now before us. That subamendment, of course, simply repeats the expression of confidence which presumably would be contained in a vote in support of the address in reply, in any event.
As has already been indicated, this is not the proper time for any of us further to express our opinions as to the propriety of a subamendment of this kind. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) has just introduced into this discussion the circumstances under which the statement was made. That has some bearing on the purpose of the amendment that is before the house, which calls for some financial support to the distressed grain growers of western Canada, in the form of a declaration by this house that there should be paid to those grain growers a specified percentage of the value of their grain in advance. That is a clear declaration which, if the members of this house had supported it, would have called for action by this government during the present session.
To remove the opportunity for a clear expression of that sort a subamendment is now before us which merely says that everything is all right, that the government
The Address-Mr. Drew is doing everything that can be done and that in this situation we have continuing confidence that the government, which has done nothing about this situation, will continue to do nothing and all will be well. That is what it says. It is for that reason that I think we should examine what is behind this evidence to which the hon. member for Vegreville has referred.
The hon. member has suggested that one hon. member who spoke previously was not happy about the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe)-I do not know just in which capacity he was then speaking-was in Calgary last week. Presumably he was not making a political speech. In the minds of hon. members on the government side that may be a dangerous presumption, but nevertheless presumably he was not. He was speaking to the Alberta wheat pool and there was a Canadian Press dispatch of that speech which so far has not been contradicted by any member of the government. I presume that is the same organization which carried a dispatch from Rotterdam not very long ago which resulted in some discussion as to what another minister of the government had said. We all know that the Canadian Press is a reliable organization for the purpose of gathering news in different parts of Canada and the world and presenting it through the channels of the press of this country.
The hon. member for Vegreville has conveyed the impression that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was simply giving one of those reassuring statements of his. I gather that what he implies is that no one was expected to take it seriously. The unfortunate thing is that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not in the happy position, even if members supporting the government may think he is, of having his statements taken in that way. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is a responsible minister-I am using the word "responsible" in the sense of responsible government-who is responsible to this house. When he makes a statement as to what is going to be done in regard to legislation the members of this house and the people of Canada have the right to assume that he is accepting the responsibility which lies at the foundation of our parliamentary system. For that reason it is interesting to see what the Canadian Press has to say in its dispatch of December 1 about what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said in Calgary to the Alberta wheat pool. I quote:
Rt. Hon. C. D. Howe, trade minister, said Friday that financial aid for distressed prairie grain growers is in prospect for early in the new year.

The Address-Mr. Drew Then the report goes on to extend the remarks, and continues:
Mr. Howe said the legislation would be introduced at the current session of parliament in the expectation the plan would be in operation by the early part of January.
Those words are not uncertain; they are not vague; this was not a pleasant prospect of something that might come. The legislation was to be introduced during the current session for the purpose of meeting this situation.


John Decore: Would the leader of the opposition read the report in the Winnipeg Free Press which contains the statement that the minister was going to recommend to the government that certain steps be taken?


George Alexander Drew: I am quoting the Winnipeg Free Press. I might point out why it is so difficult to know exactly in which capacity the minister is acting at any given moment. The next paragraph covers the point referred to by the hon. member for Vegreville. This reads:
The minister, in charge of grain marketing- That is a new capacity.
.-said at the annual meeting of the Alberta wheat pool he is prepared to recommend legislation for interim credit for farmers with unthreshed grain and those who. for one reason or another, have been unable to deliver their grain to country elevators.
A minister of the government is not in position to state that he is going to recommend something unless it is already a matter * of government policy. A minister cannot go around saying that he would like to have something done and will try to have it done. If that policy were once followed we would have nothing but chaos. Ministers of the crown must operate under the principle of cabinet solidarity. When a minister starts talking about legislation that is going to be introduced, or says he will recommend the adoption of certain measures, that presumes it is a government decision which he is announcing. The people of western Canada had every reason last Friday to believe that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was announcing a government decision on policy.
It is in the face of that fact that we must read the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on December 3 in regard to this very statement, and I quote from page 1514 of Hansard:
I have already told the hon. member that we were having the matter investigated, and that just as soon as we had come to a decision I would hasten to apprise the house of it.
I would remind hon. members that not very long ago I asked the Prime Minister if any new legislation would be introduced during this session, and I was assured that 

all the important legislation that was contemplated was already before the house. Here we have the Prime Minister saying no decision has been made, and we have the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in charge of grain marketing, informing the farmers of western Canada, according to this press report, that they may expect legislation during this session so that payments can be made in January.
Parliamentary responsibility and our system of government are not tawdry things to be played with in a political campaign in this country. It is bad enough to have a minister going abroad and announcing policies which he now says have never been decided upon, but it is a still greater breach of parliamentary responsibility for a minister charged with particular responsibility over a given matter to tell the people in a part of Canada that they can expect legislation during this session when the government itself has not yet considered that very subject.
This house is entitled to an explanation as to why that should be dione. Since the hon. member for Vegreville has raised this subject in relation to the democratic rights to be exercised in Calgary West next Monday, may I hope that at that time the voters-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: -may I hope that the voters of Calgary West will bear in mind next Monday the very clear implication of these two statements, namely, that they have no reason to rely upon the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), and that the hon. member for Vegreville, who happens to come from Alberta, suggests to all of us that we should attach no importance to it, that it was just a pure expression of hope so far as the minister was concerned. May I say to those hon. members who have greeted the reference to the by-election in Calgary West next Monday with such laughter that I trust their laughter will be as loud on Monday night.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fori William):: I should like to congratulate the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe).


An hon. Member:: The old story.


An hon. Member:: Forget it.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: In view of the attention that is paid to him when he is not in the house he must be of first importance.


Mr. H. A. Hosking (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate on the subamendment because I am quite certain that the people of my riding, particularly the farmers, do not like to think there are people in other parts of the dominion

who feel that they are not paying a just and rightful part of their earnings to the income tax department. I am quite certain that the farmers of my riding are honourable people and that they have no intention of defrauding the government out of the money that is used to provide the necessary protection for them and for the general operation of the government. On Monday I sat in the house and listened to the remarks made by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). He said, as reported at page 1540 of Hansard:
I now come to the matter of farm income tax and the unfair and almost scandalous manner in which, through the Department of "National Revenue, the government has collected very high income tax from farmers in certain provinces, but has failed almost completely to collect income tax from the farmers in certain other provinces.
At page 1541 he said:
The Minister of National Revenue cannot give a good reason why the farmers of Manitoba should pay two and a half times as much income tax as that paid by the farmers of Ontario, when the Manitoba farmer received a smaller net income for the year. There is no answer to that statement.
The farmers in my riding feel it is the responsibility of every person to pay the correct amount of income tax. They believe it is their responsibility, if they earn sufficient to pay income tax, to fill out the forms which -set out their earnings, and; pay the necessary tax. If they do not do so and they are caught, then they are guilty of an offence and are prosecuted. I suggest to the hon. member for Assiniboia that the farmers of my area are paying their correct share of income tax. He comes from the west and possibly does not know that the average size of farms in the section of the province that I represent is 100 acres, that each 100-acre farm is fenced, that in most cases they are broken down into 10-acre fields, and that each 10-acre field is fenced. I suggest that the cost of maintenance of fencing is something with which he has very little experience.
Each hundred acres has a barn and in most cases there is stock such as hogs, cattle and sheep. It is necessary to have stables, and normal wear and tear apparently is an item with which he has very little experience. Because of the nature of our farming we have to have shelter for our farm implements. We have to house and protect the various machines necessary for mixed farming. The cost of maintaining a farm in eastern Canada is much greater than in western Canada. With that in mind I can very well account for the difference in the income tax paid by the farmers of Ontario compared with that paid by farmers of western Canada. Fortunately, and correctly so, the government has seen fit to
The Address-Mr. Hosking allow the farmers in Ontario to deduct the replacement cost of usual wear and tear before income tax is paid. In doing so the farmer of eastern Canada has less left for himself than the farmer of western Canada.
But this is not my main reason for speaking now. I rose to speak particularly oh a matter of principle. The socialists to my left always adopt the point of view that it is wise to separate before attacking. The hon. member for Assiniboia attacks the government on their policy for taking care of the hardships that have occurred in the west, and the purpose of the subamendment is to take care of the amendment moved by him. I am very proud that two members from western Canada moved the subamendment. The hon. member for Assiniboia in planning his attack said: Let us divide these people; let us get the west against the east; let us arouse animosity between the farmers of western Canada and those of eastern Canada; let us separate them, and then we will take them on one group at a time. That is the usual procedure in any communistic country. I resent very much that they should have adopted such a course. I do not think it is a good thing. When a member from one section of the country tries to create the feeling that his people pay all the taxes and that we do not pay our share I say to everyone that these communist tactics are not good for the country.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: They will resort to anything.


Henry Alfred Hosking: It is a very bad thing for
people to agitate to set labour against management. It is a bad thing for people to agitate to set management against labour. It is a bad thing to agitate to set farmers against the labouring class. These are all bad things, but it is even worse when they try to separate farmers in the west and the east, and set one group against the other. This is purely a matter of principle. I am opposed to that type of thing. I do not think it is a good thing for Canada. I should like to say that I am very glad we have in the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) a man who can appreciate the hardships caused by the early snowfall in the west, and I know he will recommend that certain things within the powers of the government be done to correct the situation.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate until the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Bater), seconded by the hon. rhember for Vegreville (Mr. Decore), moved an amendment to the amendment. I have had an opportunity to read the subamendment, and

The Address-Mr. Hansell I feel called upon to say a word or two about it. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) referred to the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in Calgary the other day. While we do not like to be always bringing forward the political angle in these statements, I feel compelled to put forth my views on the matter because the statement is extremely significant. We have been riding the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the government for permitting cabinet ministers to make statements which eventually cause considerable confusion. I do not blame the Minister of Trade and Commerce particularly for making such a statement during the Calgary West by-election, because I suppose anyone taking part in an election of that kind desires to make the best of every possible opportunity.
Nevertheless there is a principle involved', and I think it might be as well for me to explain just what the situation is in connection with the Calgary West by-election. I believe it is that situation which called forth this encouraging statement by the minister. The Calgary West by-election is rather important in that there are three candidates running; one is a Liberal, one a Conservative and one a Social Crediter. I believe all three are fairly good men, and I am not saying anything derogatory about any of them. The Liberal candidate is a retired school superintendent in the city of Calgary proper, and I believe he is well respected by the citizens of Calgary whom he has served for a good many years. But the constituency of Calgary West is not confined to the city of Calgary. It runs into the rural areas and into the mountainous country at least as far west as Banff national park, taking in the town of Banff. It takes in a good deal of the foothills country and a good section of the wheat growing areas west of Calgary. While the Liberal candidate may have an appeal to the people of Calgary proper, I do not suppose the farmers in Calgary West were particularly fascinated by the prospect of having to vote for a retired school superintendent. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, therefore, had to make the best of it.


John Decore: Will the hon. member permit a question?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: You have made your speech.


John Decore: Is the hon. member aware that the minister spoke at the annual convention of the Alberta wheat pool, and not to the electorate of Calgary?


Ernest George Hansell: I am not aware of that fact at all.


John Decore: Then you should be.


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend is wrong when he assumes that. He may have been-


John Decore: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, according to the newspaper reports the minister spoke at the annual meeting.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: You read that once.


Ernest George Hansell: The minister was speaking to the members of the wheat pool in just the same fashion as the hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Decore) speaks to this house. It may take a little while for that to sink into my hon. friend's mind. Every speech the hon. member makes in this house he makes for the benefit of the people who live in the Vegreville constituency.


Some hon. Members:: Why not?


Ernest George Hansell: When the Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke to the wheat pool, he was speaking on behalf of the Liberal candidate in Calgary West, make no mistake about that. It was for that reason that he made some reference to the western farmer.. Might I speak to this particular subamendment, Mr. Speaker. Let me read the wording of it:
That all the words in the amendment after the word "regrets" be struck out, and the following substituted therefor:
"the serious difficulties encountered by the western farmers in harvesting their crops,-
No one could have any objection to that part of the amendment and I certainly could support it. Then the. amendment continues: -and commends Your Excellency's advisers for the continuing attention they have given to the problems caused thereby,-
With that part of the amendment I cannot agree, because the government has not been giving continuing attention to the problems. If they have, they have been on the outside looking through the farm window at the plight of the farmer who is on the inside. As the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) said, they are giving the farmer plenty of sympathy; but he cannot live on sympathy. His Excellency's advisers continue to stay on the outside and look in at the farmer's plight. The amendment might just as well read that way; it commends Your Excellency's advisers for standing on the outside and sympathizing with the farmer on the inside.
Then the amendment continues:
-and is confident that effective measures will continue-
How can something continue if it does not exist? The effective measures do not exist, and that is why the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue) put his amendment. He wants some effective measures to be adopted; we all want effective measures to be adopted.

How can we vote for the continuance of something that does not exist? When the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Bater) and the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) spoke to this subamendment they failed to tell the house of a single effective measure that exists today. You cannot find it in their speeches.
I close on that particular point and suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot see how anyone with any perception and appreciation of amendments can vote for an amendment like this one. The hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hosking), who spoke a little while ago, said that this amendment was designed to split the farmers into groups. Nothing of the kind. What it may do-and I do not suppose it is designed to do it-is split the members of parliament from the west Into groups, but that is another thing altogether. It does not split the farmers into groups, for there is not a farmer in the country who would not vote for the amendment offered by the hon. member for Assiniboia. The fact of the matter is that every member of parliament would be required to vote as to whether or not he wants the farmers of the west to receive an advance payment on their stored grain. In order to avoid that necessity, my hon. friends of course come forward with a nebulous and meaningless subamendment. So far as we who come from western Canada are concerned, we are not going to vote for anything as nebulous as this subamendment.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to deal briefly with an inference which was raised by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Hetland) when he spoke with regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia. He indicated that if the amendment passed, any moneys advanced by the government for grain stored on the farm would become a charge against wheat board accounts, and any losses therefrom would be borne by the wheat growers as a whole. That inference cannot be drawn from the amendment at all.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that. I said that expenses in connection with inspection would be charged to the wheat board.


Percy Ellis Wright: I will accept the hon. member's statement that he referred to expenses with regard to inspection. The amendment does not state that at all. The amendment asks His Excellency's advisers to give consideration to making an advance of 75 per cent of the value of farm stored grain.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: It does not go far enough. How about the man with grain in the swath?
The Address-Mr. Wright


Percy Ellis Wright: It states nothing about who shall take care of the expenses incurred in doing that; and it certainly was not the intention of -the mover of this amendment that those expenses should be charged against the farmers through the wheat board. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) comes back to this house, I hope any legislation he may present to take care of the serious situation which exists in the west will not be along that line, and that it will not make provision for an advance to the farmers on wheat that has not been threshed or that is under the snow in western Canada, which advance will be made by the wheat board, and that any losses which may be incurred as a result of that advance be a charge against the wheat board. If that is the type of legislation he intends to introduce I can assure the government that it will be opposed by those of us on this side of the house.
I know the hon. member for The Battle-fords (Mr. Bater) quite well. He is a practical farmer. When he introduced this subamendment I am sure he would have much preferred to introduce one which would add something to the amendment rather than one which merely expresses a pious hope. I am afraid he was in the unfortunate position where he could not offer any subamendment which would be an addition. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has not yet returned. Until he does, and until he informs the government what the government's policy is going to be with regard to any further advances, the government members find themselves in the position that they cannot offer anything in the way of substantial help to the farmers in western Canada. Apparently this is a one-man government.
We did not bring in this amendment with the idea that it met all the problems this year in western Canada. We introduced this amendment for one purpose, namely to get provision made for an advance on farm stored grain. That is something we in western Canada have been asking for, and which farm organizations have been asking for many years. A vote for the subamendment is a vote against the policy the farmers of western Canada have been asking for over a number of years now. That is the effect of it. It is voting for some pious hope rather than voting for something concrete, something we have been asking for over a number of years, which is quite another matter. When the amendment was introduced I stated that I thought it was good but that to meet the situation which existed this year some additional assistance was necessary. I
1628	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Wright recognized the fact that some additional assistance was necessary. Because the Minister of Trade and Commerce had indicated that the government were considering something in the way of further assistance, we did not extend our amendment. As reported at page 1546 of Hansard I stated:
I hope the government will give serious consideration to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia. As I said before, I do not think it goes far enough to meet the needs of all sections of the west at this time, but it is a step in the right direction. It is a good piece of permanent legislation which we should have on our statute books.
That is all we were offering, a sound amendment which would instruct the government to place on our statute books legislation which would make it possible for an advance to be made to farmers on grain stored on the farm. I hope western members will oppose the subamendment offered by the hon. member for The Battlefords because, in voting for it, they are voting against the best interests of the farmers in western Canada; they are voting against something for which the farmers in western Canada have been asking consistently over the last number of years, namely an advance on farm stored grain.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Graydon:: I was paired with the
Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


James Arthur Ross: I was paired with the right hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. Fulion:: I was paired with the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe some other members would like to declare their pairs.


Mr. Cardiff:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. While (Middlesex East):: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of moving another amendment-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -and it will not have the paradoxical result that followed the amendment of this afternoon moved by the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Bater). I intend to give this house an opportunity to vote disapproval of the excessive, unwarranted and unjustifiable high taxation that today rests upon the Canadian people. I point out, sir, that the predictions of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) made seven months ago, that the surplus of revenue over expenditure would be $30 million in one year, has been multiplied twenty times or to the extent of $604 million in seven months, more than is needed for the purposes of civil expenditures and defence.
No Canadian worthy of the name-


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I rise to a point of order. I gather, from what the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) is saying, that he is going to move another amendment which will deal with taxation. Is it not so that we are not yet back to the main motion?


John George Diefenbaker: I understood we were.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We now have before us the amendment as amended, on which the vote has not yet been taken.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The amendment as amended has not yet been put to the house.
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker


Mr. Speaker:: The next question before the house will be on the amendment as amended.


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on the amendment as amended.


John George Diefenbaker: I believe I had the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lake Centre has the floor. The motion is debatable and he has the right to debate it without at this time moving an amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: I was pointing out that no Canadian worthy of the name would object to paying a fair share of the taxes necessary to run this country, but that what Canadians are objecting to today is that there is to be no baby budget and no reduction of taxation at this session of parliament. The cost of living continues to rise; the latest available index indicates a further increase in the cost of living, induced in part by the fact that in his estimate last April the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) made one of the most serious errors ever made in the history of this country.
As a consequence of that guess extra taxation was imposed. We in His Majesty's loyal opposition pointed out that such extra taxation was unnecessary in order to meet the costs of defence and the ordinary costs of government; but the government, with its all-powerful majority, brought in new taxes and increased the sales tax by 25 per cent and the income tax by 20 per cent over and above what had been paid in 1950. The Canadian people have been taken in to the extent of $604 million in the last seven months, or $45 per head.
On motion of Mr. Diefenbaker the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will take up the two resolutions concerning the St. Lawrence seaway. If we could have unanimous consent the Minister of Transport would like to proceed with the bill ratifying the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Ontario which was tabled by the Prime Minister on Friday afternoon. Then we would be ready to proceed with the St. Lawrence seaway bill on Friday. After that we would take up the resolution to amend the Dominion Elections Act, Bill No. 18, to provide for the establishment of an agricultural products board, and Bill No. 8, to amend the North Fraser Harbour Commissioners Act.
At 6.15 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on November 2, 1951.
1631

Thursday, December 6, 1951